Monday, February 13, 2006

Guns Don't "Pepper" People, Vice Presidents Do!

So I have been reading the news reports and blogs regarding Cheney’s shooting accident, and here is my take. As much as I would like to argue that this is one more distraction straight out of the Karl Rove playbook, I don’t think that it is. I also don’t think that it was just a minor incident that could have happened to anyone. The shooting itself is a terrible thing but what it confirms about Cheney and the White House is the scariest thing of all.

At a time when the administration almost daily asks the American people to trust them, this shooting and how Cheney seemed to have handled it once again proves that he is not trustworthy in any way. Not coming forward in a timely manner, then concocting a story to try and take the blame from his shoulders only highlight Dick’s incredible lack of character.

This was Cheney’s fault plain and simple. He pulled the trigger and shot a man. He is responsible - period! Taking 18 hours to wordsmith a story where you characterize the shooting of a man as “spraying” or “peppering” him with buckshot is unacceptable. And by the way when you “spray” the intended quail with buckshot – it dies.

For once in your life Dick, admit that you made a terrible mistake, take responsibility and apologize to the man in the ICU that you shot and to the American people. And while you are at it – apologize for the War in Iraq, the domestic spying, outing a CIA agent, the war profiteering and all the other bullshit that you have “peppered” the country with as Vice President.

11 comments:

  1. Cheney did apologize in person. Personally I think Cheney embodies much of what is wrong with the party; he's secretive, too close to the business community...in a word, creepy. Nonetheless to see in an errant hunting shot the sinister machinations of Karl Rove and Republican distraction is pure paranoia. There is nothing to distract from. This Administration is relatively unpopular but neither wiretapping nor the almost indiscernable presence of Jack Abramoff in a picture with President Bush is going to be enough to take it down. And so long as the Democrats remain a party of opposition rather than of constructive ideas they're not going to be able to exploit this weakness.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Giraffe6:03 AM

    Anon, Obviously you did not hear Democratic Governor Mark Warner speak yesterday on CSpan, or Senator Clinton speak in San Francisco or Democratic Senator Russ Feingold recently. They are all full of ideas for change.

    I'm sure Vice-president Cheney is devastated by what he has just done. I do feel sorry that he made such an error, but it does seem like poetic justice that he have to see first hand the havoc that is caused by shooting an innocent man.

    After all, our troops are seeing the innocent die everyday.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, they are being blown up by their co-religionists and countrymen and our troops are risking their lives to stop it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Funny how they weren't being blown up by their co-religionists and countrymen until our troops got there!

    I completely agree that our troops are now risking their lives to stop it, and I thank them for doing their jobs as well as they can.

    But they wouldn't have been there in the first place if "The Creepy One" weren't as cavalier with a loaded military as he apparently is with a loaded gun (and occasionally a loaded President, but that's another story!)

    ReplyDelete
  5. They weren't being blown up. They were being tortured, raped, shot, gassed, etc etc by their fellow countrymen. Iraq is far from perfect, but GNP per capita has doubled since the invasion. Even if you don't want to believe the worst about Saddan, fringe leftists had long argued 100,000 a month were dying as a result of the sanctions. We have heard that >30,000 have died since the invasion. Clearly this would be progress, no?

    ReplyDelete
  6. No! The numbers that you are quoting to make your argument cannot be confirmed. And even if you accept them these were never the reasons given for the invasion.
    We shouldn't be there. some 3000 were killed on 9/11.
    we are fast approaching the same number of brave American soldiers as a result of this operation in Iraq. And how many wounded? While you justify this invasion to save the poor tortured Iraqi's, you show your true concern by pointing out the GNP. I'm sure the orphaned children of the war are comforted by the doubling GNP.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 30,000 is the statistic most widely quoted for people who have died since the invasion. 300,000 is the most widely quoted figure for those buried in the mass graves that have been uncovered (100-120,000 in the post-Gulf War repression alone). Thus Saddam's annual death rate over a quarter-century was at least as high, if not higher, than the death rate since the invasion (the majority of whom were killed by insurgents). As per the GNP per capita figure, it is not the least bit heartless to point out that an economic situation that had, by most accounts, precipitated malnutrition has clearly taken a turn for the better.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah....Yeah and the insurgency is in its last throws. Why don't you quote some statistics about the number of Iraqi's that have consistent electricity or running water. Or maybe speak about the number of US tax dollars that have gone missing. What good could that money have done the Iraqi people if there had been a post war plan? Any plan. The GNP argument is grasping at straws.

    The conservative ideals that you believe are not driving this administration. Their Neocon empire is crumbling. I know you see it. It is obvious in your comments lately.

    Defending Bush and Cheney is hard work .... its hard!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Giraffe4:35 PM

    Defending Bush and Cheney is hard work.

    I just heard the the United Arab Emerits will be controling our key American seaports with the approval of this administration. How is this possible? Are we giving this country away?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree we could have done much better. We could have had the Iraqi Army trade weapons for shovels and put them to work on public works projects rather than send home a mass of angry, unemployed men already trained in the use of weapons. We could have had enough troops on the ground to secure the borders and infrastructure. But there is a difference between saying we could have done better and saying that the Iraqis were better under a tyrant. Utilities and the infrastructure in the Sunni Triangle are in many cases little better or even worse than they were under Saddam, but in other areas of the country that had long been afterthoughts access to electricity, clean water, and economic opportunities have improved significantly. Intelligence is the ability to make reasonable distinctions. It is progress, just not as fast or as much as it could have been with foresight.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My argument isn't that the Iraqi's were better off under a tyrant. It is that they posed no real threat to the United States. There are a lot of tyrants in the world. I wish it were not so. But depleting our military resources and passing the cost to our grandchildren does more harm than good. A visibly weakened America greatly harms the progress of Democracy in the world.

    I like your assesment of things we should have done. Too bad this administration was so short sighted. And come on using the line - "Intelligence is the ability to make reasonable distinctions" in any discussion regarding George Bush is beyond idiotic.

    ReplyDelete